Regular readers of this website will have noticed that since yesterday we have a new blog banner and upgraded blog format.
I am not yet familiar with all the new gadgets, widgets, asides and facilities that come with the new format and I am still to add links and develop comment policy settings. So, please be patient, there are more changes to come.
A redesign like this doesn’t just happen. I would like to thank Chris for the new banner and Dewi for the tedious transfer from moveable type to wordpress. If you want a new website or blog you might consider the team at www.internet-thinking.com.au headed by Graham Young. They also publish www.onlineopinion.com.au.
The new banner is from a photograph of an escarpment in the Blue Mountains that I took in December 2007. An uplifting about 200 million years ago was followed by erosion exposing layers of sedimentary rock. Superimposed on this is new vegetation after what was a devastating bushfire in November 2006. Also shown in the picture is a staircase and interestingly Charles Darwin visited this site in January 1836.
Along with the new banner and format I am planning other changes. I’ve tried to make this blog a gathering place for people with a common interest in environmental issues, to strive for tolerance and respect and to give different perspectives an opportunity to be heard. This necessarily involves tolerating what many would consider offensive ideas; indeed it is increasingly easy to offend when you take an evidence-based approach to many emotive environmental issues including whaling and climate change.
While I don’t have a problem with what some would consider offensive ideas, I do have a problem with offensive behaviour in particular language that is designed to be personal and derogatory while not progressing understanding.
So, with the new upgraded format, I hope we can lift the standard of commentary.
Many thanks to all those who have contributed to this blog over the last three years; particularly Paul Biggs and Neil Hewett who have made a really significant contribution over the last year. Paul will have a new blog up soon and I will have links to his blog and also Neil’s established blog soon.
Cheers,
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“While I don’t have a problem with what some would consider offensive ideas, I do have a problem with offensive behaviour in particular language that is designed to be personal and derogatory while not progressing understanding.”
This really presents a serious problem. These guys really are frauds. These are leftists who appear here for purposes of character assasination and to keep this science fraud going. The list of other reasons for them being here is short in length and feeble as to the strength of these supplementary motivations.
They enter upon a relentless and eternal evidence filibuster which they will not break. Almost as if they were motivated by a perverse sense of honour cooked up by demonic nihilists and hobgoblins who hated science from its beginning.
Given the ill-will and malice of the proponents of the fraud side of the argument, any attempt to fake-up a collegial surface attitude to these societal sabouteurs would be dishonest. It would mislead third parties.
Think of why Luke, NT, Bernhard with his pompous pretensions to respectability, and SJT show up here. They aren’t even a tiny bit interested or fascinated by the science. And they get in the way of climate rationalists sorting out their differences or asking eachother questions.
They are political extremists here to defame the blog owner and then they head off to Deltoid, Coby Becks, and the beloved Professor Brooks place to round out the defamation.
It is the fault of the climate rationalists that they have given blatant leftist science fraud the air of respectability by trying to revive some sort of collegial politeness under circumstances when such an attempt is inane.
Nature will not be deceived on this matter. And third parties seeing the abuse from one side and the exaserbated politeness from the other will conclude instinctively who is on the top of the food chain and they will fall into line accordingly.
Being respectful in response to blatant science fraud and savage unreason is being deceptive. Its doing more harm then good. Its a focus on the purity of self rather than the need to destroy this movement and get on with the business of producing, consuming and exporting more energy every quarter.
“These guys really are frauds. These are leftists who appear here for purposes of character assasination and to keep this science fraud going. The list of other reasons for them being here is short in length and feeble as to the strength of these supplementary motivations”
Wrong Graeme on every point! I reckon it is you who is offside with the main game most of the time.
No I’m not wrong. But then you being a compulsive liar would say that.
We can tell the sincere from the leftist phonies. For example I would still put Mitchell Porter in the alarmist camp. But he is an intelligent fellow who is investigating this matter, in a reasoned way, seemingly for the first time.
Now he might in the end sway with the mob and not have the independence of mind to break free from them.
But at this stage we can see the honest enquirers and differentiate them from the obvious fakes and bully-boys such as yourself, Luke, NT, SJT, Bernhard and others. Notice that you are all anonymous frauds. Whereas there are other unscientists who will comment about what is said here but will never show up under their actual identity.
I like the new policies of this blog. You can put up whatever crazy ideas you like, not actually use any physics, and label anyone who question syou a fraud. Nice start Graeme, glad to see that some things never change.
Jen
You should now by know that “improvement” means worse, especially with WordPress. It was always bad, and is even more so here now. One has to write on a postage stamp, there is no Preview that I can see, and as usual WordPress cannot cope with simple cut and paste from Word or Excel documents. It is a totally useless prgramme. And I see that Graeme Bird is as ever drunk whenever he posts on your blog. I am in favour of free speech but he ought to be subject to a breathalyzer test before his posts are accpted (like almost all of the remaining handful of posters to Quiggin and Lambert including ’em).
As one of the initial participants on this blog I was quite surprised to read that there has only been 4 authors, the least contributive supplying only 3 articles.
Funny, I could have sworn that I posted more than a dozen, some of which took some considerable time to prepare. So is this a case of being written out of history or just a failure to give proper attribution to the works of others?
Hi Ian, Numbers of ‘authors’ etcetera has been automatically generated by the blogging software. Your blog posts were posted by me, so your name is not displayed. But at the actual post it should show that you were the author. Old posts have not been changed. And your contribution is valued.
Thanks, Jen. I understood that to be the case. But on behalf of all the other non-authors of this site I ask if it is possible to alter the blog software, or search engine, so a simple search by Author name would produce a list of all articles “attributed” to each? At the moment all I got was a single 2005 piece where my name happened to be the first two words of a piece written by you.
I understand your predicament but there is no point in you complaining that other people’s statements are being attached to yourself when your software continues to attribute the article to yourself.
Hi Ian, My understanding is that with the new software I can post something from you and put you down as the author. But I haven’t worked out how to do this yet. Indeed I have lots to learn. And you may not have realized that the ‘community page’ has its own thread http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/category/community/ . You might want to leave a comment for Elizabeth.
What is your problem Curtain you jerk?
Don’t be picking fights with people who haven’t picked a fight with you.
If you disagree with me on something why not pick me up on it specifically?
You sound like some sort of weakass triangulator. This is real malice motivating the other side. And its not the place of everyone here to be placid in the face of it.